-
pep.
Does updating the registrar entries of a XEP mandate a version block
-
flow
pep., do you update the registrar entries without a textual change of the XEP?
-
pep.
Well depending on the XEP, it might just make sense to only update the registrar..
-
pep.
I did update the sole exapmle here though
-
pep.
So probably at least requires a patch release
-
flow
pep., which change are we discussing?
-
pep.
https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/949/files
-
flow
ohh that's a good one
-
flow
I first ask myself if data form registry entries also come with <required/>
-
flow
so right now, one could argue all the existing fields in the registry submission of xep157 are optional
-
flow
and the new field you add is also optional
-
flow
so it is a backwards compatible change
-
flow
it would clearly require a version block if it was a backwards incompatible change
-
flow
but nevertheless it basically adds a new thing (akin to attribute element4) on the protocol layer, so i'd say a version block would be required
-
flow
even if it would not be required it would be nice
-
flow
plus it would certainly be nice if you also extend the example
-
flow
and even add a textual description for that field
-
flow
because I ask myself if I could parse the text in that field as uri
-
flow
i.e., if this field is required to contain only valid URIs
-
flow
hmm the last one is probably unrelated to your concrete change
-
flow
oh, there is no trace of <required/> in the xsf registry, so either it is not expected to be included in the registration submission, which I would find strange, or, we there was simply never a required field registered
-
pep.
so.. version block? :p
-
pep.
What do you mean "extend the example"? Don't I already do that?
-
flow
pep., ahh sorry, for some reason I only saw the diff in the registry submission
-
pep.
hmm, how do I even make sure it contains valid URIs.. That would be good to have yes
-
flow
pep., well you could specify it in text, idally we would extend xep122 for that, but that can be done later on
-
flow
uh wait
-
flow
xep122 has support for xs:anyURI
-
pep.
So how would that work? Can I say that in the PR?
-
flow
hehe, that's probalby newland. similar to <required/> I can't find registry entries with xep122 annotations. But that doesn not mean that it should not go in the registry, it probably just means that nobody bothered or did it
-
flow
i personally think it belongs in the registry information, but not in the example, as the example shows a data form of type 'result'
-
flow
and you have the xep122 annotations usually in data forms of type 'form'✎ -
flow
and you have the xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form'✎ ✏ -
flow
and xep122 annotations only make sense in data forms of type 'form' ✏